Comments on: The Rocket Manhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man/
Comments on MetaFilter post The Rocket ManSat, 15 Sep 2001 10:20:21 -0800Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:20:21 -0800en-ushttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss60The Rocket Manhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man
<a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/bizarre/">The Rocket Man</a> says: "I know I wouldn't get on an American airline unless it had an armed guard." Despite everything, I think it's going to be a long long time before that happens---could airlines really afford that? post:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:17:12 -0800adrober9-11airlinesairplanessecurityBy: mathowiehttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133867
Simple, add $5-10 to the ticket price, to cover the cost of the guard. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133867Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:20:21 -0800mathowieBy: aenematedhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133872
hell, the airlines will be lucky if they can afford to fuel the planes. what good is 5-10$ more a ticket going to do when no one wants to fly?comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133872Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:33:06 -0800aenematedBy: asokhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133876
this could have positive repercussions as regards environmental impact. 50% of all air traffic originates in the us.
unfortunately, air fuel is not taxed at the same rate as 'gas', it is taxed at a far lower rate.
however, as i am sure the airlines will remind us - it is still the 'safest' way to travel.
on a personal level, if i *had* to take a flight, the events of last week would not feature in my decision for a carrier.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133876Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:47:06 -0800asokBy: zerotypehttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133920
The airlines will be lucky if they are still in business a month from now.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133920Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:10:26 -0800zerotypeBy: warholhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133925
The events of the last week haven't shaken my confidence in the least with regards to air travel. In fact, tomorrow night, I'll be flying from Boston to Germany. I am not afraid.
Look, there's a better likelihood of me getting hit as I cross the street every day and yet, somehow, I muster up the courage to get across the street. The odds are very remote that I'll be on a plane that will suffer a horrible fate. Is it possible? Sure. Can I or should I dramatically change my lifestyle because of terrorist attacks? No. The odds still remain very remote that they'll directly affect me. Ever. Yes, I should absolutely be aware and be cautious as I travel and I shouldn't go out of my way to place myself in danger. But, I still have every confidence in air travel as a whole.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133925Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:26:49 -0800warholBy: tpoh.orghttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133926
An armed guard would not be necessary, if a means could be devised to essentially "vault" the pilots inside the cockpit from the time they enter until the time they land.
In any case, anyone who would <i>not</i> fly after the events of Tuesday need to realize that this is almost completely unlikely to happen again - at least, for a long, long time.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133926Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:29:39 -0800tpoh.orgBy: holgatehttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133928
Elton John has the luxury of being able to charter his planes, so he needn't worry. As for the rest of us: well, fear is a weapon, and it can be fought. There are structures in place to improve air security; they were already implemented by the FAA for international travel. So, I'd imagine that the no-frills end of domestic air travel -- the AirTrans and SouthWests -- will suffer very badly, and the bigger carriers will survive.
In short, air travel will step back a couple of decades.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133928Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:35:39 -0800holgateBy: robhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133930
airlines don't need to afford the cost of guards: the government is putting (and has been) armed US marshals on board planes. unless of course they have to pay to have them on board, which I don't think is the case.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133930Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:42:04 -0800robBy: MeadowLarkhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133934
My understanding from a friend of mine in the Special Forces is that the Israeli's airline has two "shooters" (his words) on each plane, one in the front and one in the back. Frankly, I've never heard of the hijacking of an Israeli jet, or the bombing of one. Additionally, security is so tight it takes at least two hours to get boarded. Check-in sometimes includes guards cutting open the heel of your shoe to check to see if anything is inside of it, and then (thank you very much) gluing it back together for you.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133934Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:50:12 -0800MeadowLarkBy: mlaakerhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133943
Having an armed guard on any public airliner seems like a tragedy in the making. By placing an armed guard (whether a US Marshal or a US Airways hire), we are placing a loaded weapon within a cabin of hundreds of civilians. The possibilities for this guard being overpowered or forced into surrendering his weapon are numerous, and seem to be cause enough to negate the entire idea.
Personally, I like the idea of a sealed cockpit, completely inaccessible during flight.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133943Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:12:15 -0800mlaakerBy: hipstertrashhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133952
Why not recruit a volunteer corps of air marshalls? Find current or former military and law enforcement personnel who would be willing to go through the proper training and each handle a few flights a year? You could give them unlimited free travel, tax breaks, life insurance, etc. I know that I can't be the first person to have thought of this.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133952Sat, 15 Sep 2001 13:49:13 -0800hipstertrashBy: fpatrickhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#133959
Being careful, and even a tad paranoid is understandable, but the idea of avoiding air flight strikes me as crossing the line to hysterical. Even this past Tuesday, how many flights took off in the US between 7 and 9 am. The odds of getting on one of the 4 involved were pretty slim. I've got a flight on this coming Thursday booked, and see no reason not to take it.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-133959Sat, 15 Sep 2001 14:04:42 -0800fpatrickBy: bunnyfirehttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134040
While we are at it-let's make sure we screen the air marshals real well.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134040Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:05:01 -0800bunnyfireBy: kindallhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134062
mlaaker: I think any potential tragedies could be averted by the simple expedient of having marshals wearing plainclothes and boarding with regular passengers. If you are a hijacker and you don't know who has the gun, but you know someone does, your strategic options for successfully completing your mission (whether it is using the plane as a weapon or just as a bargaining tool) become very limited.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134062Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:23:59 -0800kindallBy: skallashttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134233
<I>An armed guard would not be necessary, if a means could be devised to essentially "vault" the pilots inside the cockpit from the time they enter until the time they land.</I>
What difference would that make? If the CC-TV shows a terrorist demanding to land in Algiers with a gun to the head of a passenger I seriously doubt the pilots will tell him to go ahead and kill her because they're nice and cozy in the bulletproof cockpit.
Historically, terrorists don't take the controls.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134233Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:18:23 -0800skallasBy: kindallhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134239
<I>What difference would that make?</I>
It would prevent the terrorists from seizing control of the aircraft and ramming it into a large building, perhaps? You know, like what happened Tuesday?comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134239Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:23:52 -0800kindallBy: jesshttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134256
<i>"anyone who would not fly after the events of Tuesday need to realize that this is almost completely unlikely to happen again."</i><br><br>True enough, but for already-nervous airplane passengers like myself, there are only so many times I can see that second WTC crash without it breaking any will I had to get on another airplane. Hijacking, mechanical failure, whatever.. I'm not sure if I'll be flying again.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134256Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:14:11 -0800jessBy: sixdifferentwayshttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134292
It's true, El Al (the Isralei airline) has between 2 and 4 armed security personel on each flight (in street clothes.) I don't know how much the airlines would care about this. We have American paying Eagle pilots $13000-$15000 per year. What are they going to get? A mall rent-a-cop? Certainally not a trained security specialist on each flight. Seems like it would be a false sense of security. And there's no guarantee a guard could stop a few highly trained people bent on taking him downcomment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134292Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:24:45 -0800sixdifferentwaysBy: skallashttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134366
<I>It would prevent the terrorists from seizing control of the aircraft and ramming it into a large building, perhaps? You know, like what happened Tuesday?</I>
So instead of thinking of solutions that cover the most common situation of taking over a plane we'll invest all our money and effort into coming up with something that'll only avoid suicide attacks? Ridiculous.
If you want to impress me come up with a solution that covers both hijacking and suicide.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134366Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:31:39 -0800skallasBy: nicwolffhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134381
So arm the pilots! We're already trusting them with the controls of a passenger jet; isn't it reasonable to trust the flight deck crew with sidearms?comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134381Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:56:06 -0800nicwolffBy: kindallhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134408
<I>If you want to impress me come up with a solution that covers both hijacking and suicide.</I>
Garden-variety hijackings don't result in thousands of fatalities. According to sources I've found on the Web, the <B>total</B> death toll from all hijackings <B>since 1970</B> is about a <I>tenth</I> of the number of people still missing (and almost certainly dead) in New York City, not even counting <I>confirmed</I> deaths in NYC or at the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. The most that have ever died in a single hijacking incident prior to 9/11 seems to be 132, with most incidents leading to far fewer fatalites -- the last six such incidents resulted in <I>one</I> passenger fatality. (<A HREF="http://www.emergency-management.net/airterror_hijack.htm">Source</A>)
Yeah, I want to prevent planes being used as weapons in suicide attacks first and foremost, because that is currently the primary threat!comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134408Sun, 16 Sep 2001 00:48:09 -0800kindallBy: skallashttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134471
<I>Yeah, I want to prevent planes being used as weapons in suicide attacks first and foremost, because that is currently the primary threat!</I>
The primary threat would be the one more likely to happen to you. I'd rather be on a plane with an air Marshall than with a bunker cockpit. The money spent on retrofitting all commercial planes would be better spent on on-board security than some wacky technological solution that only applies to an incredibly small % of air hijackings.
If anything is going to happen on the suicide attack end of things it'll be that no airliner will be outside the range of an F-16's missile near any large city.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134471Sun, 16 Sep 2001 04:08:38 -0800skallasBy: kindallhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134581
<I>The primary threat would be the one more likely to happen to you.</I>
No, the primary threat is the one more likely to <B>kill the most people.</B> Duh.comment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134581Sun, 16 Sep 2001 10:05:47 -0800kindallBy: Mars Saxmanhttp://www.metafilter.com/10355/The-Rocket-Man#134639
I am planning to avoid air travel, if I can manage it. I'm sure air travel is completely safe, and will be even safer once the political aftershocks have finished, but that's not what bothers me. I'm afraid of the security measures themselves: retinal scans, databases, full-body X-rays, face-matching, whatever. I don't want to have my information run through half a dozen databases in order to prove that I don't even look like a terrorist before I can fly somewhere.
It would be only too easy to land on someone's list of "suspected dangerous people". It'd be completely unprecedented for the general public to be able to query these databases, or to be able to lodge complaints against them if errors are found. That is simply not going to happen.
So we're heading toward a situation where, if somebody in the FBI decides they don't like you (maybe you lobbied for a marijuana-legalisation initiative, maybe you wrote the next DeCSS or Gnutella, maybe you got arrested for chaining yourself to a sidewalk at some protest), you can expect to be treated with suspicion, possibly detained, possibly searched in detail, every time you try to fly on a plane for the rest of your life.
This is not an institution I want to have anything to do with.
-Marscomment:www.metafilter.com,2001:site.10355-134639Sun, 16 Sep 2001 11:24:19 -0800Mars Saxman